(2021-10-15, 10:01 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know. Something about this approach does not gel with me. Perhaps I'm just a romantic.
It seems to me that attempting to reduce the essentially subjective to objective data points rather destroys that very subjectivity. I firmly believe that our true nature is subjective - that reality depends on (and arises from) mind and that mind is naturally subjective. So Love, Beauty, feelings, etc., are not computable although you could make a case for some kind of arbitrary measurement criteria - degrees of happiness, maybe? Yet the Hard Problem is hard for that very reason - it is subjective and not reducible. When I say not computable, I mean that you can't program the love you feel for your new-born child or the pleasure of the smell of freshly baked bread. For all the inflated claims for AI I am confident that it will never be able to do that.
We strongly agree that AI will not be feeling bored or excited, because let's remember it is only a
simulation. There is nothing directly subjective about it. The "magic" is in the sleight of hand, where AI simulates the outcomes of intelligence, well. It is designed to produce the same objective kind of outcomes that do naturally come from mind. Mind, QM and AI process the same kind of mutual information structures.
The math for the MTC is whiz-bang with formal logic and puts the outcomes of bio-information processing and that of binary code processing on equal footing. The real-thang and the sim can be seen on nearly equal terms. Living things, in some ways, do embody algorithms. In stark contrast the MTC (mathematical theory of communication), can not by definition be about meaning. It is specifically excluded.
Not so, with the meaning/intent aspects of information science. Bio-information is dripping with it. We can measure functional and creative meanings having a role in surrounding ecologies. Bio-information is the phenomena of minds using
meaning to change what happens in the real world.
Look, I'm not smart about this stuff, I just have a working perspective about what is simple and general. Likewise, I have an agenda, one that protects and promotes the fact that Psi is an important part of the human mental environment. As said, I appreciate each person's ideas about deeper meanings and personal experience. I am not looking to take anybody's precious from them, but................
If the Psi conversation was ever to turn to - "oh, here is what we are confirming as we go along" - then the Pscience ball gets rolling. We (Psi supporters) are not going to move with solid footing unless it is in concert with the growing awareness of Psi in natural processes.
I humbly bow and open my heart to those who want say that - "there is Supernatural Psi as the Revelation of my culture or of my personal meditations! It is important spiritual expression. Why should a deeper meaning to Psi, get in the way of learning about its role in the environment. If there is a Wise source sending signals to living things, it would make sense that the communication pathway was a built-in part of nature.
But to the purpose at hand >>>> Psi as Revelation can be True but, still be right in the way! And be a negative orientation to the general public at this time, as receptivity goes down as soon as there is mystic guidance to a science thesis. The marketing situation now is that the colors of religion might hold back good ideas about Psi. We know the factual basis of this, as it is the favorite beef here, whenever it happens.
It is obvious to me that route to freedom of expression about Psi, comes with reason, planning and executing a scientific based research effort. A program that shows how mind works to produce the bio-information systems we can observe as current and past phenomena. Marketing the facts can grow deep roots, in the grounding of how Psi is part of natural life.
And still paves the way for acceptance when it has spiritual implications.